Tag: COP10

  • Doubling Down on Failure

    Doubling Down on Failure

    Photo: v-a-butenkov

    The FCTC COPs comprise a counterproductive, environment-busting waste of time and money.

    By George Gay

    If COP10 proved one thing, it is that there should be no COP11.

    The continuing existence of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which is seemingly controlled by a coterie of authoritarian, publicity-shy, self-appointed morality overseers and to which supposedly sovereign governments humbly send their delegates to worship at the altar of the FCTC Secretariat, is an affront to the environment and to the taxpayers who part fund these COP affairs and whose taxes could be better spent feeding and otherwise providing for people currently in desperate need.

    From the information that seeps out, everything that gets done at these secretive affairs could be done through emails and the odd telephone call. It seems unconscionable, verging on suicidal, that, with 2023 having marked the first time that every day within a year, the temperature exceeded 1 degree Celsius above the 1850–1900 preindustrial level, with close to 50 percent of days 1.5 degrees above and two days in November, for the first time, more than 2 degrees above,* more than 1,000 COP delegates should kick off 2024 by flying to Panama supposedly as part of a health initiative. This was insanity on stilts.

    I asked the organizers what the carbon footprint of the event was, but answer came there none, so one must assume that while the secretariat likes to interest itself in the environmental impact of tobacco, it is unconcerned about keeping its own house in order. In other words, it is safe to assume that COP10 was a totally avoidable environmental disaster waved through so a few people could carry forward a vanity project aimed at their trying to interfere with the lifestyle choices of smokers.

    Why should the diktats dreamed up by a tiny clique of would-be tobacco prohibitionists and lifestyle controllers be allowed to affect the choices of 1 billion adult smokers?

    Limiting Choices and Threatening Livelihoods

    Why should the diktats dreamed up by a tiny clique of would-be tobacco prohibitionists and lifestyle controllers be allowed to affect the choices of 1 billion adult smokers? Why should they be allowed to threaten the livelihoods of millions of tobacco growers, their families and those who work for tobacco companies and allied businesses?

    The futility of COP10 was nicely, though unintentionally, summed up by one of the European Union delegates when, in his three-minute introductory slot, he said that the EU had been at the forefront of tobacco control and a driving force in negotiating the FCTC and its protocols, now an important component of the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development (SD). Then, without offering any reason or apportioning any blame, he said that at the midway point of the 2030 SD agenda, 85 percent of the SD goals were off track and that nearly a third of the targets were in regression. Turning to the home front, he said that despite the introduction of tobacco control legislation and policies, smoking rates in the EU remained high, again without questioning why this might be the case.

    Meanwhile, seemingly oblivious to the failures he had described, the delegate started to sum up by talking of the need to redouble joint efforts by saying that the EU remained fully committed to the FCTC and adding that by working together during the conference, delegates could take a step forward in their global tobacco control agenda. At first, I thought the delegate had taken as advice Walt Kelly’s put-down, “having lost sight of our objectives, we redoubled our efforts.” But then I realized this was not true because whereas I had assumed the main objective was to encourage people to quit tobacco smoking, the EU delegate’s objective was seemingly to implement WHO measures whether they worked or not.

    He finished by saying, “Together, we can deliver sustainable progress and pave the way for a tobacco-free world where people can enjoy healthy lives with no one left behind.” Here we were into Candide territory where everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Fortunately, the Ukraine delegate was there to remind delegates that this was not the best of all possible worlds and that tobacco consumption goes up when people are under stress, especially when they are constantly under the threat of death because their territory has been invaded by the forces of another country.

    Whereas I had assumed the main objective was to encourage people to quit tobacco smoking, the EU delegate’s objective was seemingly to implement WHO measures whether they worked or not.

    No Progress Without Change

    Do the WHO and the delegates at these affairs really believe that by trying to force people to give up tobacco smoking, they will ensure everybody leads a healthy life, with no one left behind? What about the many people around the world daily facing rape, torture and violent death by invading forces or simply at the hands of their own less than benevolent governments? Will the multitudes afflicted by under-reported starvation, with their dying words, thank the delegates for saving them from the ills of tobacco? Will those vulnerable people deeply afraid of the arrival, on the WHO’s watch, of the next pandemic, offer thanks for being protected from a lifestyle choice they can protect themselves from? And do these delegates think that when we are all standing knee-deep in water following environmental breakdown, we shall thank them for removing the temptation of smoking, if for no other reason than because the matches would be too damp to light our tobacco? If they do, they need to get out more.

    And they need to mend their bullying ways. One of the main reasons why there should be no COP11 is down to the disrespectful way the COP10 affair treated the Philippines. Apparently, the Global Alliance on Tobacco Control (GATC), previously known as the Framework Convention Alliance, in a puerile intervention in what should have been an adult debate, handed the country the GATC’s pathetic “Dirty Ashtray” award for having the temerity to promote tobacco harm reduction (THR). The Philippines is a sovereign democracy that decided after robust debate that the health of its people could be aided by allowing smokers access to safer alternatives to combustible cigarettes. It should continue along that path unless it, and it alone, decides otherwise. Its decisions should not be brought into question by a gaggle of anti-tobacco organizations whose existence is dependent on the continuing health of the tobacco industry but that is threatened by the rise of THR.

    Indeed, the FCTC Secretariat and the GATC should, in any properly run debate, recuse themselves when matters of THR are raised since they could be seen as having a vested interest in not wanting the tobacco industry, especially the cigarette industry, to be fatally undermined—rather than suffering the flesh wounds the FCTC is able to inflict. That this is the case is supported by the existence of the COP byproduct, the Meeting of the Parties (MOP3, as it was in Panama) to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, whose love affair with “track-and-trace” systems is aimed at ensuring tobacco manufacturing businesses retain their customers.

    The best reaction to the GATC’s intervention would be for all nations that are committed to THR to withdraw from the FCTC, which is not going to change its ideology. And without change, there can be no progress.

    But for all COP10’s faults, I cannot help wondering whether hypocrisy isn’t the very worst. I would suggest that a significant proportion of the more than 1,000 delegates and officials who attended the Panama affair drink alcohol. And I would further suggest that a good proportion of those are addicted, or regular drinkers, some of whom might be “problem drinkers.” How, I wonder, do these drinkers manage to take the moral high ground and condemn smokers? Do they have to stand on their empties? Isn’t that a little unstable? Or perhaps they are used to such balancing acts. Perhaps they are used to using just one eye to examine the damage done to individuals by their smoking while shutting the one that might focus on the even greater damage done to populations and societies at large by drinking. Sadly, I doubt that many have the level of self-awareness that would encourage them to engage with such issues. They exist in a closed world of self-righteous indignation.

    Although that is not the way the secretariat sees things. COP10 headlined a post-conference press note with possibly the longest heading ever written: “COP10 adopted historic decisions to protect the environment from the harms of tobacco and to address cross-border tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship and the depiction of tobacco in entertainment media.”

    How any of the above warrants the epithet “historic” is beyond me. The idea that what went on in Panama Feb. 5–10 should be regarded as famous or important in history is simply laughable. From what has emerged, COP10 was just another case of the same people using a lot of words to say the same things as they have said in the past. The only way that COP10 could write itself into the history books would be to do the decent thing and write FCTC COPs out of history.

    Shrouded in Secrecy

    How do I know that the same people said the same things? I don’t; I’m guessing; I have to guess. WHO COPs are conducted along the lines of secret society meetings by people supposedly so frightened that anybody should learn of the lack of intellectual rigor guiding their processes that delegates are required to go through a type of omerta ceremony, though, bizarrely, they seem to refer to it as the application of Chatham House Rules. Journalists and anybody with an independent mindset are not allowed to enter the hallowed halls of the conference.

    Or are they? According to the press note with the longest heading, “COP10 was open to the media ….” But this does not chime with report after report by journalists and other interested parties who have complained about not being granted accreditation at any of the FCTC COPs due to a standard FCTC cop-out. One of the best brief reports on COP10 that I read was by Nick Powell for EU Reporter, who wrote, “Like many journalists, I was refused accreditation, but that made little difference as the conference voted to exclude the press.”

    It is difficult to square these two takes on the situation. I did ask the organizers of the event about this, but answer came there none. All I can go on is that the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that Powell is correct. And this is probably admitted in the full sentence in the press note with the longest heading: “COP10 was open to the media, which had the opportunity to observe all public and open sessions, enabling reporters to witness more than 1,000 delegates from around the world unite over six days to consider and take action on important issues related to implementation of the convention.” It seems that this was obfuscation because there were few “public” or “open” sessions. I must admit that they had me fooled there for a minute, but then I thought that press notes, even those with the longest headings, were supposed to inform, not mislead.

    Silly me. Health Policy Watch (HPW), obviously having read another post-event press note, quoted the WHO as saying: “Globally, some 200,000 hectares of land are cleared every year for tobacco cultivation, accounting for up to 20 percent of the annual increase in greenhouse gasses (GHGs).” But, as HPW pointed out, the WHO “failed to explain the source for the GHG estimate.”

    And it could do with explaining something else. This is from the thoughtful COP10 conclusions of the International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA): “ITGA, as the global tobacco growers’ representatives, observes with concern the impunity applied to using arguments against tobacco farming without providing reliable data. A fresh example is the WHO FCTC claim that 200,000 hectares of land are being cleared every year to grow tobacco when in fact, the harvested area of tobacco has consistently declined in the last decade.”

    COP10 was just another case of the same people using a lot of words to say the same things as they have said in the past.

    Avoiding Harm Reduction

    But let me go back to Powell’s piece because it contained something else most interesting. He immediately followed the sentence quoted above with one saying: “That was shortly after the organizers cut off the microphone of a delegate who had the temerity to suggest that the priority should be harm reduction.” Of course, this incident makes a mockery of the statement in the press note with the longest heading that is quoted above as saying 1,000 delegates from around the world were united over six days. Clearly, they were not united. Questions around THR and less risky alternatives to combustible cigarettes had to be kicked down the road.

    Powell did not say which delegate was cut off so rudely, and I can imagine there might be any number who would have wanted to make the point about THR, including those from the Philippines, of course, but I do know the U.K. delegation was supposed to make such an intervention. A meeting in the U.K.’s Houses of Parliament on Jan. 18 was told by Dame Andrea Leadsom, the parliamentary undersecretary of state for health and social care, that the U.K. delegation to COP10 would put forward its position that vapes comprised an important tool for helping adults quit tobacco smoking.

    Leadsom was speaking during a backbench debate organized by Member of Parliament Andrew Lewer and aimed at uncovering what stance the government would take at COP10. Lewer, and others who spoke during the debate, were concerned that COP10 might resolve to establish equivalence in the regulation of combustible cigarettes and reduced-risk products, thus undermining the U.K.’s successful strategy of using vapes to help smokers quit their habit. Concern was expressed during the debate also about the fact that though the U.K. was a major contributor to the FCTC, it seemed diffident in its approach to tobacco COPs.

    If backbenchers were hoping for a robust stance by the U.K. this time around, they must have been disappointed, at least in respect of the three-minute introductory presentation by the U.K. delegate, who did not mention THR and whose reference to vapes was confined to saying how the U.K. was concentrating on reducing the appeal of these products to children. I could not see whether she tugged her forelock when she declared commitment to the FCTC.

    What a contrast to the New Zealand delegate’s brilliantly measured presentation where she spoke of the country’s pride in reaching tobacco control milestones and coming close to its goal of reducing the incidence of smoking below 5 percent. This had been achieved, she added, through a mix of FCTC-endorsed measures and the considered implementation of evidence-based harm reduction measures, including making available to smokers a range of nicotine-replacement products.

    The question is, why should these pointless events continue. Most governments run by sentient creatures must know that FCTC COPs comprise a counterproductive, environment-busting waste of time and money. Safer alternative products can replace combustible cigarettes within a reasonable time. All that is needed is for those governments to apply and enforce consistent, light-touch but effective regulation to these products, ensure that messaging about them aimed at consumers is accurate, clear and consistent, and then sit back and let the private sector do the rest.

    The FCTC has already ruled itself out of being a part of such a process.

    *Figures from the European Commission’s Copernicus project
    George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.
  • WHO Urged to Embrace Nicotine Alternatives

    WHO Urged to Embrace Nicotine Alternatives

    Derek Yach

    The World Health Organization should embrace safer alternatives to cigarettes in order to save 100 million lives that will otherwise be lost to smoking, according to Derek Yach, a global health consultant who led the WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative during development of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was previously president and founder of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

    “The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has not kept pace with scientific and technological advancements,” Yach writes in The Lancet. “Over 120 million people worldwide, in seeking a path away from combustible cigarettes, have turned to safer alternatives, such as e-cigarettes, oral nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products. Evidence suggests that these alternatives improve quit attempts compared to traditional nicotine-replacement therapy.

    “Yet, the FCTC’s current emphasis on bans, prohibitions and regulations undermines access to these safer alternatives for millions of tobacco users. It is time to recognize their potential and prioritize harm reduction.”

    Writing in response to The 20th anniversary of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: hard won progress amid evolving challenges, Yach sets out a three-point plan that he says could result in potentially 100 million fewer premature deaths between 2025 and 2060:

    • Incorporate tobacco harm reduction: The FCTC should actively promote safer alternatives, recognizing their role in reducing harm.
    • Balanced Regulation: While regulation is necessary, it should not stifle innovation or limit access to safer products.
    • Science-based policies: Governments must base decisions on evidence, fostering independence and informed choices.

    “We cannot afford to wait for a miracle,” he says. “The WHO must adapt swiftly to the changing landscape of tobacco use and embrace innovative strategies to protect public health.”

    Yach disputes Kelly Lee and colleagues’ contention that tobacco companies’ development of safer alternative is purely profit-driven.

    “Negotiations leading to the FCTC’s adoption were intricate and delicate, resulting in nearly all major tobacco producers (except the USA and Indonesia) becoming signatories,” Yach says. “Rather than demonizing these legacy companies, we should acknowledge their evolving stance. Many are actively shifting away from combustible cigarettes, embracing safer alternatives as technology evolves.

    “Saving lives requires bold action. Let us unite in our commitment to a smoke-free future—one where harm reduction leads the way.”

  • Mediocre Meeting

    Mediocre Meeting

    Image: Aleksandr Baiduk

    COP10 is unlikely to significantly accelerate progress toward the FCTC objectives.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    The scene could have been from a Monty Python movie. During the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), authorities raided four hotels hosting tobacco harm reduction (THR) advocates, investigating reports of “T-shirts and pamphlets advertising harmful products,” according to Martin Cullip, International Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s (TPA) Consumer Center.

    “These turned out to be clothes worn by consumer advocates bearing their organization’s name and flyers politely addressing COP10 delegates and asking them to consider harm reduction,” he says. “It is shameful that Panama considers materials expressing the right to free speech and democratic engagement to be a criminal matter.”

    Concurrent with COP10, Cullip co-organized the TPA’s “Good COP” (“Conference of the People”) counter-conference at the Central Hotel Panama. The event was livestreamed and featured almost two dozen tobacco harm reduction experts representing 14 different countries. With their presentations, they said that they were holding the WHO accountable for denying “lifesaving access to tobacco harm reduction products” and denying the public and media access to the COP meetings.

    “We know that the WHO were aware of our event as it was mentioned in webinars by Corporate Accountability, the University of Bath and the Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals,” says Cullip. “It is also included in a page on COP10 interference at Tobacco Tactics [a knowledge exchange platform monitoring the tobacco industry’s activities]. One purpose of the event was to get the WHO’s attention, so we are thrilled to have achieved that. There were no attempts to stop our event, but we were visited by an inquisitive group from Vital Strategies, and a couple of delegates ventured away from the conference to have a snoop around our hotel.”

    While the “Good COP” organizers did not interact with any COP10 delegates, consumer representatives who attempted to go to the Convention Center in the hope of having a discussion were stopped. “Journalists approached WHO front groups ‘protesting’ outside the building but were told that only FCTC-accredited media would be spoken to,” says Cullip.

    Another Private Function

    Stakeholders such as consumers and tobacco growers struggled to be heard in Panama. (Pamphlet courtesy of Martin Cullip)

    COP10 was business as usual in many ways. As in past events, the conference managed to maintain its secrecy. Media representatives were cherry-picked in an accreditation process that denied access to anyone who doesn’t share the WHO’s idea of tobacco control. But even the Chosen Ones were thrown out after the delegates voted on Day 1 to exclude the press. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) wishing to take part had to pass a similar test of faith while consumers who have successfully quit smoking with the help of reduced-risk products were banned from sharing their experiences.

    The absence of dissenting voices allowed delegates to spread misinformation uncontested, as in the estimate of the area of land cleared for tobacco cultivation every year. It also allowed them to shame states for THR-friendly policies. The Philippines, for example, received an “Ashtray Award” for its “brazen use of tobacco industry tactics of obstinate dispute and delay throughout the COP.” Without outside scrutiny, the delegates could also conveniently ignore scientific evidence from studies not commissioned by the WHO or its financial supporters led by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

    In such a climate, only a few delegations had the courage to use the short progress statements during the opening plenary to discuss their countries’ positive experience with novel nicotine products. New Zealand was the only party to point out how the implementation of a differentiated, evidence-based regulatory framework that includes reduced-risk products (RRPs) had contributed to significantly reduced daily smoking rates.

    Most other country statements were disappointing, according to Cullip. “Canada made no mention whatsoever of harm reduction, and the U.K. were too timid to even mention the ‘Swap to Stop’ campaign, which is a central plank of the U.K.’s efforts toward the country’s Smoke-Free 2030 goal and is always mentioned in parliamentary question answers on the subject,” he says. “One can only assume they were scared of upsetting the FCTC Secretariat, so they chose not to rock the boat. There is also a suspicion that the U.K. announced its ban on disposable vapes, plain packaging and restrictions on flavors just a week before deliberately so they would be looked on favorably by the WHO.”

    Armenia, El Salvador, Guatemala and the Philippines were among the few parties to mention THR at the conference. They called for a serious and evidence-based discourse on novel tobacco products, stressing the need to consider alternative methods of reducing the health impacts of smoking. The Philippines, whose regulatory framework has recognized the role of RRPs since 2022, cited FCTC Article 1(d), which stipulates that harm reduction is one of the pillars of tobacco control.

    “There were signs at COP10 that some countries are softening on harm reduction, and quite a few made country statements referring to THR or voicing the opinion that the WHO should recognize the potential,” says Cullip. “During the proceedings, some parties also questioned the quality of reports presented by the FCTC for COP10. I had the impression that some delegations realize that the genie is out of the bottle on reduced-risk nicotine products and [that] it’s best to recognize that and accommodate them in tobacco control policies instead of banning them, which is unrealistic and futile.”

    There were signs at COP10 that some countries are softening on harm reduction, and quite a few made country statements referring to THR or voicing the opinion that the WHO should recognize the potential.

    Martin Cullip, International Fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center

    Debate Postponed

    In line with the agenda, COP10 delegates debated novel nicotine products but without making decisions. Discussion on FCTC Articles 9 and 10, which deal with the testing and measuring of tobacco products’ contents and emissions, and the disclosure of such information, went on for the full length of the conference without achieving consensus. Cullip views this as a positive development. “It is good for consumers and public health that the wild proposals contained in COP10 reports on Article 9 and [Article] 10 did not gain any traction at COP10,” he says.

    St. Kitts and Nevis urged the FCTC Secretariat to form a working group to discuss harm reduction and to define it under the terms of Article 1(d). “This is the first time that any meaningful discussion has taken place on that part of the treaty, so it is quite significant,” says Cullip. “A working group is open to all parties to the treaty to take part in whereas an expert group is populated by cherry-picked NGOs and ‘experts’ appointed by the FCTC Secretariat and Bureau.

    “The WHO wanted an expert group set up to discuss Articles 9 and 10 to replace the previous working group, which was suspended in 2018 at COP8. Parties had been surveyed in 2020 and 2021 about the fate of the working group, and a majority, both times, were in favor of reactivating it. However, their wish was ignored, and the WHO proposed setting up an expert group regardless. It tends to explain why parties could not come to a consensus, and the St. Kitts proposal just added to the disagreement.”

    THR proponents had asked for a working group in the run-up to COP10, but so far to no avail. “There is still no formal confirmation of the decision, let alone its scope of work, objectives, criteria or membership,” says Delon Human, president and CEO of Health Diplomats and co-author of a COP10 scorecard report that measures the progress in achieving the FCTC objectives. “However, WHO’s silence on this issue should not overshadow the importance of member states finally beginning to ask the right questions,” Human notes.

    Derek Yach, who as a WHO cabinet director and executive director was heavily involved in the creation of the FCTC two decades ago, hopes that the FCTC Secretariat will look back at the way it held broad consultations with industry scientists in the years leading to the adoption of the treaty. While a draft decision requires parties to review and update the evidence and science related to tobacco harm reduction by COP11, the text, according to Yach, suggests that the proposer has prejudged the outcome.

    “It highlights ‘the need to be informed about activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control,’” says Yach, who is also the lead author of the COP10 scorecard. “Never once does the decision hint at possible positive effects of THR on tobacco use and its ultimate effect on health. Further, the decision reverts to outdated science when discussing tobacco cessation. Use of the terms ‘concern,’ ‘caution’ and ‘challenges’ all portray THR in a negative light. If this decision is adopted, it may hamper a needed open scientific debate about benefits at a time when these become clearer and stronger with new major publications.”

    The world of tobacco control and THR has changed dramatically since [2003], which is unfortunately not reflected in the interpretation, development and implementation of FCTC guidelines.

    Delon Human, president and CEO, Health Diplomats

    No Significant Effect Anticipated

    The COP10 scorecard was shared with all COP10 delegates and a host of non-state THR stakeholders, according to Human. The responses received by non-state actors such as NGOs or public health advocates were mainly positive, he notes, while state actors only acknowledged receipt. The report assessed progress made by the parties to the FCTC in six sections. Trends in tobacco use and impact was rated an E-, commitments, resolutions and pledges received a B+ and implementation of resolutions a D-. In the three other sections, the FCTC got poor marks too.

    Measured against the findings of the scorecard, COP10 didn’t fare well, according to Human. “The most disappointing aspect of COP10 was the ongoing nonrecognition of THR as an integral part of tobacco control as stated in Article 1(d) of the FCTC,” he says. “Therefore, the ‘fail’ grade for not embracing THR was perpetuated. This is […] a failure to prevent unnecessary tobacco-related disease, disability and premature deaths.”

    Furthermore, the “fail” marks for neglecting THR research priorities and capacity-building in low-income and middle-income countries were validated not only by nonaction but accentuated by the ongoing exclusion of key stakeholders, Human points out. “We scored the lack of stakeholder engagement as a ‘fail’ beforehand, and unfortunately, the COP10 exclusionary behavior confirmed the ‘fail,’” he says. “FCTC’s Article 5.3 requires parties to protect the implementation of their public health policies against the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry. Yet this is impossible when many of the same countries are also striving to generate revenue from state-owned tobacco entities.”

    Globally, 18 governments own 10 percent or more of at least one tobacco company. This is likely to interfere with at least one of the decisions referenced in COP10’s Panama Declaration: the creation of a working group to deal with Article 19, which nations can use to hold the tobacco industry liable for people’s health and the environment. The article was repeatedly discussed in previous COP meetings, says Human.

    “The expert group which has been established will be made up of lawyers from various countries, with experience of holding tobacco companies accountable. At COP6, the expert group on Article 19 presented a comprehensive report on civil liability for the tobacco industry, and at COP7, it presented an online Civil Liability Toolkit. Whether this leads to a flurry of lawsuits after COP10 remains to be seen. The technical guidance needs to be backed up by political will in countries. Tobacco companies remain one of the most effective tax collectors for countries, so the most likely outcome will be prolonged discussions followed by minimal action,” says Human.

    Human feels encouraged by the COP10’s decision to set up another expert group to work on “forward-looking control measures” under Article 2.1, which encourages governments to implement measures beyond those required by the FCTC. “The world of tobacco control and THR has changed dramatically since [2003], which is unfortunately not reflected in the interpretation, development and implementation of FCTC guidelines,” he says.

    “Article 2.1 might offer hope in that it could guide the COP to better translate new information, science, products and consumer experience into actions. As a starting point, our hope is that the workgroup would review current peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of noncombustible nicotine alternatives such as ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery systems] to facilitate and accelerate cessation. Then it could play a role in balancing the COP focus to consider supply side measures in equal weight to the current focus on reducing demand for tobacco products.”

    For Human, the recent COP’s decision to strengthen language around Article 18, which urges parties to take account of the environmental impacts arising from the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of tobacco products as well as the waste they create, is positive, as it will help integrate tobacco control policy with those protecting the environment. “For example, it will improve policy coherence between the FCTC and national and international treaties, like the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, aimed at addressing hazard waste from tobacco products, including cigarette butts,” he says.

    “Another positive outcome could be an acceleration of identifying and promoting economically viable and sustainable agricultural alternatives to tobacco growing. All in all, it should strengthen implementation of the FCTC.”

    Human is less optimistic that the decisions taken at the event will contribute to accelerating the decline of global tobacco consumption. “Based on the mediocre decline in tobacco consumption facilitated by COP1 to COP10 and the inability of parties to fully embrace harm reduction strategies, science, products and methods, no significant declines are expected.”

    Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.
  • New COP and MOP Bureaus Elected

    New COP and MOP Bureaus Elected

    Photo: butenkow

    The 10th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, held Feb. 5–10, 2024, in Panama City, elected new members for its Bureau. The Bureau shall serve until the closure of the following regular session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11), including for any intervening extraordinary session.

    Reina Roa of Panama was elected president of the Bureau. The vice presidents will be Csaba Kontor of Hungary, Noraryana Binti Hassan of Malaysia, Jawad Al-Lawati of Oman, Nuntavarn Vichit-Vadakan of Thailand and Judith Segnon-Agueh of Benin.

    Vichit-Vadakan will also act as rapporteur.

    The following parties were designated to act as regional coordinators for the COP:

    • Cote d’Ivoire for the African Region;
    • Canada for the Region of the Americas;
    • Tunisia for the Eastern Mediterranean Region;
    • Spain for the European Region;
    • Timor-Leste for the South-East Asia Region; and
    • New Zealand for the Western Pacific Region.

    The Third Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products (MOP3), held Feb. 12–14, 2024, in Panama City, also elected its new Bureau. The new Bureau shall serve until the closure of the following regular session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP4), including for any intervening extraordinary session.

    Mansour Zafer Alqahtani from Saudi Arabia was elected president of the Bureau. The vice presidents are Hekali Zhimomi of India, Zliza Fantidou of Cyprus, Vimal Deo of Fiji, Omar Badjie of the Gambia and Marcos Dotta of Uruguay.

    Deo will also act as rapporteur.

    The following parties were designated to act as regional coordinators for the MOP:

    • Gabon for the African Region;
    • Paraguay for the Region of the Americas;
    • Islamic Republic of Iran for the Eastern Mediterranean Region;
    • Greece for the European Region;
    • India for the South-East Asia Region; and
    • Samoa for the Western Pacific Region.
  • Anti-Illicit Trade Convention Concludes

    Anti-Illicit Trade Convention Concludes

    Photo: Ivan Semenovych

    The Third session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP3) to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products concluded Feb. 15 with new commitments to combat the black market.

    “Our meeting this week took important decisions on tobacco tracking-and-tracing systems and approved a road map to conduct evidence-based research on illicit trade,” said Adriana Blanco Marquizo, who as head of the Secretariat of WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control also oversees the Protocol.

    “We also agreed on improvements for the reporting system our Parties use, which will strengthen the quality of data on implementation of the Protocol that can help guide future tobacco control efforts,” she said in a statement.

    The MOP is the governing body of the Protocol, which is an international treaty that entered into force in 2018 and aims to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products through a package of measures to be taken by countries acting in cooperation with one another.

    “It is a global solution to a global problem,” said Blanco Marquizo.

    Illicit trade accounts for about 11 percent of total global tobacco trade, and its elimination could increase global tax revenues by an estimated $47.4 billion annually.

    Representatives from 56 Parties to the Protocol and 27 non-Party States gathered in Panama City, Feb.12-14 to tackle a range of issues from progress on implementation of the treaty to sustainable financing for tobacco control.

    MOP3 also adopted the Panama Declaration that calls on national governments to be alert for what it described industry campaign to undermine efforts to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products.

    The Panama Declaration also emphasized the need for effective action to prevent and combat illicit trade in tobacco products, which requires a comprehensive international approach to—and close cooperation on—all aspects of illicit trade in tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco manufacturing equipment.

    Contradicting the observations of some tobacco grower representatives and consumer activists, the WHO said MOP3 was open to the media.

  • Tension in Panama

    Tension in Panama

    Photo: Claudio Teixteira

    The exclusion of Brazilian representatives from the recent WHO event sparks a debate on transparency.

    By Claudio Teixeira

    At the recent Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), held in Panama Feb. 5–10, the exclusion of Brazilian representatives from the state of Rio Grande do Sul, the epicenter of the tobacco industry, generated a wave of criticism for secrecy, exclusion and a lack of democratic transparency. The incident, marked by the refusal to accredit deputies, a state secretary and the press, reveals deep tensions in the global debate on tobacco control, casting doubt on the inclusiveness and openness of the international decision-making process. The controversy at COP10 underscores the challenge of redefining the fight against smoking concerning people, economies and local traditions.

    On the first day of COP10, an incident involving a group of parliamentarians from Rio Grande do Sul, a state in the extreme south of Brazil, highlighted the exclusionary, opaque and nontransparent nature of this important international event in addition to tensions between global health policy and the multiple interests at stake.

    The event aims to advance tobacco control policies, a topic of global importance given the impact of smoking on public health. Delegations from the state parties can participate. However, according to its regulations, the COP can invite other interested parties, such as intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, to participate as observers in its meetings. The exclusion of official representatives and the Brazilian press from the meeting generated controversy and heated discussions about democracy, transparency, the need for dialogue and the future of an entire production chain.

    Rio Grande do Sul, a region with a long tradition in tobacco production, found itself at the epicenter of this debate. In this southern state of Brazil, tobacco is not just an agricultural crop; for many rural families, it represents the backbone of their livelihoods, with the sector generating $2.4 billion in exports in 2023. Tobacco is strategically positioned in the regional economy, surpassed only by soy in export volume.

    The exclusion of political representatives and the Brazilian press from COP10 triggered a wave of outrage, highlighting a clash between those who can decide how global public health efforts will proceed and local communities’ social and economic realities.

    ‘Regrettable, Authoritarian and Intransigent’

    State and federal deputies along with the secretary of rural development of the government of Rio Grande do Sul, Ronaldo Santini, expressed their frustration, describing the WHO’s action as “regrettable, authoritarian and intransigent.” The refusal to allow their participation in the event was seen not only as an anti-democratic act but also as a sign of contempt toward communities that economically depend on tobacco cultivation.

    Federal legislator Marcelo Moraes was emphatic in his statement, underscoring the need to expand the debate to include additional dimensions, such as the economy and social aspects. He cited the situation in his region, where the livelihood of more than 70,000 households is sustained by tobacco production and more than 40,000 jobs are generated in its industry.

    Moraes expressed his skepticism about the seriousness and democracy of the convention, criticizing its tendency to marginalize sectors directly involved in the discussion. “This debate needs to be broader,” he said. “I don’t believe this convention is serious, I don’t believe this convention is democratic … it simply excludes those who have a direct interest in this discussion happening here.”

    The congressman also expressed his concern about the ongoing ban on electronic cigarettes in Brazil, noting the considerable number of users who turn to the illegal market to obtain these devices. He highlighted how this situation results in a loss of revenue for the country, which could even benefit from the export of these products. Moraes argued that the ban does not reduce the number of users and advocated for regulation that allows adjusting aspects of the product, which in turn could mitigate health risks and make it less attractive to minors and nonsmokers.

    Regarding the refusal to grant accreditations to participate in the event, the deputy pointed to the organization of the event as responsible, highlighting the role of Vera Costa e Silva, the former general secretary of the event and current leader of the National Commission for the Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Brazil. The deputy suggested, with a sense of certainty, that her influence within the organizing group could be the reason for the exclusion, given her refusal to allow opposing voices in the discussion.

    Voices Unheard: The Exclusion of Rural and Worker Rights in Global Tobacco Control Dialogues

    Heitor Schuch, a federal deputy respected for his dedication to the rights and interests of workers and rural communities, seems to have a deep commitment to these sectors due to his frequent participation in various legislative commissions, addressing crucial issues such as family agriculture, rural development and environmental conservation.

    Under the scorching sun, outside the premises of the Panama Convention Center, the current leader of the Industry, Commerce and Services Commission in the Chamber of Deputies, Schuch did not hide his discontent and discomfort due to the refusal to allow him access to COP10 as an observer. The Gaucho legislator has clearly expressed his perception of a lack of welcome toward them, reflecting the climate of tension and exclusion that surrounded the event.

    Schuch highlighted that the World Health Organization, through the Secretariat of the FCTC, seems to focus unilaterally, ignoring the critical need for dialogue and transparency in international conversations on tobacco control, where all voices, especially those directly affected, should be heard and considered. He stressed that the WHO is omitting the voices of rural producers, industrial workers and residents of the municipalities where the tobacco-producing companies are located. For Schuch, the exclusion of these important sectors from the conversation is not surprising as it once again evidences a disinterest in including multiple perspectives in the debate.

    On the same day, the deputies’ nighttime visit to the Embassy revealed a complex stance by the Brazilian ambassador, Carlos Henrique Moojen de Abreu e Silva, regarding the exclusion of the delegation.

    Initially, Abreu e Silva offered his support to the delegation, but later, at the COP10 plenary, he emphasized the importance of adopting policies aimed at reducing tobacco production, including tax reforms and the continuation of the vaping ban in Brazil.

    These statements added a new dimension to the already tense debate on tobacco control policies, demonstrating the complexity of reaching a consensus on an issue that requires inclusive and thoughtful dialogue, taking into account both nicotine consumers and those involved in the tobacco production chain.

    Silencing the Press: The Unprecedented Exclusion of Journalists from COP10 and the Quest for Transparency

    Deputy Heitor Schuch shared that, although he had faced similar situations in the past, the recent exclusion of eight Brazilian journalists took him by surprise. He underscored a critical difference this time, highlighting that, unlike previous occasions, in Panama, there was an explicit prohibition against the presence of media.

    This fact highlights a new layer of opacity and control over information emanating from crucial events like COP10, where transparency and access to information should be fundamental pillars. The decision to block press access affects not only freedom of expression but also questions the openness and accountability of international discussions on public health policies.

    Schuch expressed his discontent with this measure, describing it as “regrettable,” especially because Brazil actively engages in promoting press freedom, ensuring its access to all kinds of events and activities. The participation ban in this context, according to the deputy, represents a clear concern that deserves serious and urgent dialogue with Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    This call to action underscores the need to uphold the principles of transparency and freedom of information, fundamental in any society that prides itself on being democratic, especially in international forums where policies with significant global impact are debated.

    Among the media outlets whose accreditation remained “pending” are names like Ola Jornal, Folha do Mate, Radio Acustica FM, GZH, RBS TV and C3PRESS/The Vaping Today. This uncertainty regarding press participation reflects a broader conflict surrounding access to information and freedom of expression, essential in any debate of public relevance.

    The withholding of accreditations for these media further highlights the opacity with which the event was handled, raising questions about the willingness to facilitate an open dialogue and broad media coverage on public health issues and global tobacco control policies.

    One of the journalists excluded is Leticia Wacholz, the respected editor of Folha do Mate, a newspaper deeply rooted in the life of Venancio Aires city for its dedicated coverage of local interest issues. Her exclusion sets a disconcerting precedent, especially considering her previous participation in COP7 in India and COP8 in Switzerland, where she was accredited without any issues.

    This time, at COP10, the lack of a clear justification from the organizers leaves a void of uncertainty about the basis of this decision. “We meticulously fulfilled all the requirements, submitting the necessary documentation within the established deadlines, and yet, we have been denied entry,” explains Wacholz, visibly frustrated by this unexpected barrier that prevents them from carrying out their journalistic work from Panama, where they moved intending to inform their community about critical developments.

    The journalist underscored the importance of representing a region known for its tobacco industry, insisting on her commitment to offer balanced coverage that includes both public health implications and the interests of her community. “We know, of course, that we are journalists from a tobacco-producing region, but we also want to listen to the health side; it is very important to listen to the health side as well,” added Wacholz. She is aware that the decisions made in Panama will significantly impact her community.

    Her determination to gain access reflects a widespread concern for transparency and the right to information, cornerstones in public debate and the democratic exercise. Wacholz noted that she still hoped for a definitive resolution regarding her exclusion. She commented that the delegation of deputies was in the process of establishing communications that could pave the way for dialogue, possibly with the National Implementation Commission of the Framework Convention, representing the country’s delegation at the conference.

    The possibility of a meeting that opens doors to an understanding could not be confirmed, leaving in suspense the opportunity for excluded representatives and media to participate as observers and cover the global dialogue on tobacco control.

    This uncertainty underscores the critical importance of a firm commitment to inclusivity and transparency for the press in international forums, where policies affecting communities and economies worldwide are discussed. The lack of access for the Brazilian press at COP10 highlights the critical need for a review of the “approval” procedures by the FCTC Secretariat.

    Exclusion and Silence: The Controversial Interpretation of Conflicts of Interest at COP10 and Its Impact on Tobacco Control Dialogue

    A journalist who preferred to remain anonymous commented: “It’s not just individuals considered persona non grata, but all opposing voices are labeled under Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which excludes the participation of organizations or representatives with any connection to the tobacco industry. A journalist coming from a tobacco agricultural and industrial region like Rio Grande do Sul, who wishes to work and inform their community about what is being debated here, seems automatically placed in that conflict of interest, even if they have nothing to do with the tobacco industry.”

    This statement highlights the complexities and sensitivities around debates within the framework of the COP, illustrating how the interpretation of conflicts of interest can not only limit the diversity of perspectives but restrict the essential media coverage for a complete understanding of the topics under discussion.

    In Rio Grande do Sul, where these journalists and official parliament representatives originate, tobacco cultivation is at the pinnacle of family farming enterprises. The region boasts 65,000 producers dedicated to this crop, who in the 2022/2023 season achieved an impressive production of 300 tons, translating into revenues of BRL4.6 billion ($928.61 million). Additionally, the tobacco industry provides direct employment to approximately 25,000 individuals, underscoring its predominant influence on the local economy.

    The incident at COP10 highlights a global dilemma in the redefinition of Tobacco Control: the pressing need to rethink strategies worldwide and incorporate innovations in tobacco control that generate a tangible impact on the reduction of the global rate of diseases attributed to tobacco use. The organizers, under the pretext of avoiding the influence of the tobacco industry, have chosen to silence any critical or divergent voice and requests for debate, thus evading democratic scrutiny.

    The question spontaneously arises: How is it possible to implement effective public health policies in a framework of lack of transparency, closed dialogue and total secrecy?

    The challenge lies in finding a balance that benefits public health without compromising local economies, especially those revolving around controversial crops like tobacco. The exclusion of representatives from Rio Grande do Sul at COP10 uncovers not only a lack of commitment to democratic principles and diplomacy but also underscores the urgency for the WHO to foster open dialogue and develop policy strategies that harmonize global health goals with the economic needs of communities.

    This entails the implementation of integrative strategies that encompass the realities of people. It involves investing in education, ensuring the right to information, promoting safer alternatives to cigarettes and establishing an open and constructive dialogue forum, where all stakeholders, from nicotine consumers to small tobacco farmers and politicians representing thousands of people, are assured that their voices and needs are considered.

    In response to this situation, federal deputies Heitor Schuch, Marcelo Moraes and Rafael Pezenti along with state legislators like Edivilson Brum, Ze Nunes, Marcos Vinicius and Silvana Covatti expressed their protest through a note of repudiation, officially and firmly positioning themselves against the undemocratic stance of the FCTC Secretariat, since the event is financed with public funds. The WHO did not provide a specific justification for why the Brazilian deputies were prevented from attending COP10.

    Claudio Teixeira is a journalist, director of C3PRESS Agency and editor of The Vaping Today. He lives in Brazil.
  • COP Concludes

    COP Concludes

    Photo: Maksym Yemelyanov

    The 10th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) concluded on Feb. 10 with a commitment to strengthen protections against the impact of tobacco on the environment and health.

    “We have taken a historic decision on Article 18,” said Adriana Blanco Marquizo, head of the FCTC Secretariat, in a statement, describing action to strengthen the article of the FCTC focused on the protection of the environment and the health of all people.

    “The decision urges parties to take account of the environmental impacts from the cultivation, manufacture, consumption and waste disposal of tobacco products and to strengthen the implementation of this article, including through national policies related to tobacco and protection of the environment,” Blanco Marquizo said.

    Representatives from 142 parties gathered in Panama City Feb. 5–10 to tackle a range of issues from progress on implementation of the treaty to the regulation of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

    According to the WHO, some 200,000 hectares of land are cleared every year for tobacco cultivation, accounting for up to 20 percent of the annual increase in greenhouse gases.

    The decision also addresses the issue of cigarette filters. According to the WHO, an estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are thrown away annually worldwide, representing 1.69 billion pounds of toxic trash containing plastics.

    “Under specific circumstances—such as sunlight and moisture—cigarette filters break down into smaller plastic pieces, eventually leaching out some of the 7,000 chemicals contained in a single cigarette,” the WHO wrote on its website. “Many of those chemicals are environmentally toxic. The decision on Article 18 is very timely given the ongoing intergovernmental negotiation committees working to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.”

    COP10 delegates also agreed to strengthen guidelines on cross-border tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship and the depiction of tobacco in entertainment media.

    In addition, two expert groups were established—one to work on forward-looking tobacco control measures under Article 2.1 of the FCTC and the other to focus on Article 19, which concerns liability.

    Other decisions adopted by COP10 relate to the promotion of human rights through the WHO FCTC as well as strengthening the FCTC Investment Fund.

    The parties also agreed to extend by five years the mandate of the Global Strategy to Accelerate Tobacco Control 2019–2025: Advancing Sustainable Development Through the Implementation of the WHO FCTC 2019–2025 so that it fully aligns with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

    COP10 also adopted the Panama Declaration, which draws attention to the “fundamental and irreconcilable conflict” between the interests of the tobacco industry and the interests of public health. The declaration also makes clear the need for policy coherence within governments to comply with the requirements of Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC, which aims to protect public health policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.

    Contradicting the observation of tobacco grower and consumer groups that traveled to Panama, the WHO insisted that COP10 was open to the media, which it said had the opportunity to observe all public and open sessions.

    COP10 is followed by the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, which will meet in Panama City Feb. 12–15.

  • Russia Tackles Illicits

    Russia Tackles Illicits

    Photo: Center for Research and Perspective Technologies

    Russia’s national digital track-and-trace system, Chestny ZNAK, has achieved a 25 percent reduction in illegal tobacco within a year of implementation, according to the Center for Research and Perspective Technologies in Moscow. Furthermore, it contributed to the legalization of 18 tobacco production and the dismantlement of 45 illegal ones.

    Russia’s accomplishments were recognized during the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Panama City this week.

    Chestny ZNAK tracks each cigarette pack in real-time, from the point of production to final consumption. The technology relies on digital data matrix codes assigned to each pack. This code contains information including production point, date, expiration and licensing documents. The information is updated at every stage of the product’s lifecycle until final sale. Illegal products are flagged by cash registers in stores, making them impossible to sell.

    To empower citizens and enhance transparency, a sophisticated mobile application has been introduced. This application allows users to verify the legality of various products, including tobacco and 16 other categories such as pharmaceuticals, dairy, footwear and photographic equipment.

    The system has also helped other sectors protect their businesses against brand piracy, contributing to a 12-fold decrease in substandard dairy products, a 20 percent reduction in the illegal perfume trade, and a more than a two-fold decrease in the illicit tire market, among other advances.

    Authorities estimate the tax impact of the system to be nearly RUB500 billion ($5.5 billion) and expect this figure to at least triple by 2025.

  • Past WHO Officials Highlight THR Strategy

    Past WHO Officials Highlight THR Strategy

    Photo: Alexander Ovsyannikov

    Harm reduction should be a central strategy of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in addition to the measures for demand and supply reduction, according to Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita.

    Writing in The Lancet, the two former World Health Organization directors argue that while the FCTC has been influential in encouraging a global response to tobacco control, it has been challenging to show a strong and consistent association between the implementation of FCTC measures and smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption outcomes.

    The FCTC does not prohibit harm reduction approaches but leaves it up to member states to decide how to regulate e-cigarettes and other novel nicotine products. The WHO’s lack of endorsement of tobacco harm reduction limits healthier choices for the 1.3 billion people globally who smoke and who are at an increased risk of early death, according to Beaglehole and Bonita.

    The authors note that there is no scientific justification for WHO’s position that e-cigarettes and other novel nicotine products should be treated in the same way as tobacco products. This position, they argue, overlooks a risk-proportionate approach.

    “We believe WHO needs to provide positive leadership and technical support to countries as they consider the use of e-cigarettes and other nicotine delivery devices,” the authors write. “WHO’s current approach to these lower-risk product is to reward countries, such as India, for banning e-cigarettes; thirty-four countries, primarily low-income and middle-income countries, now ban e-cigarettes.”

    Beaglehole and Bonita note that, in some countries, substantial reductions in smoking prevalence have coincided with the uptake of novel nicotine products. In New Zealand, for example, the prevalence of adult daily smoking plummeted from 13.3 percent in 2017–2018 to 6.8 percent in 2022–2023 after e-cigarettes became widely available, a 49 percent decline in five years.

    In the same period, and with the support of the government and regulation of vaping, the prevalence of adult daily vaping increased from 2.6 percent to 9.7 percent. New Zealand’s recent decline in smoking occurred in the absence of any other major tobacco control policy, apart from the annual cost-of-living price increases, according to the authors. “The decrease in smoking during this period in New Zealand shows what can be achieved, and exceeds the WHO smoking prevalence reduction goals of 30 percent over 15 years from 2010 to 2025,” they write.

    The New Zealand 2022 smoke-free legislation includes a “tobacco-free generation”, a 90 percent reduction in smoked tobacco retail outlets, and compulsory denicotinization of retail tobacco. The New Zealand government, elected in November 2023, is committed to reaching the Smokefree 2025 goal of 5 percent (or less) smoking prevalence for the adult population, but intends to repeal the 2022 smoke-free legislation.

    However, because of the implementation timelines, fears that this repeal would jeopardize the Smokefree 2025 goal can be allayed, according to Beaglehole and Bonita. This is because none of the three headline measures would be expected to have an impact before 2025 and might have had negative unintended consequences. “Based on recent progress, New Zealand’s Smokefree 2025 goal looks likely to be reached by consent rather than coercion and by further support for switching to smoke-free nicotine products,” the authors note.

    Beaglehole and Bonita also highlight the success of other high-income countries in reducing smoking prevalence in association with the use of a range of lower-risk nicotine delivery devices to complement FCTC demand and supply reduction measures.

    Sweden, with a long tradition of snus use, has the lowest prevalence of adult daily smoking in the world, down to 6 percent in 2022, accompanied by low mortality from tobacco-related diseases.

    Norway has had similar success with reducing smoking prevalence in the context of increased use of snus and e-cigarettes, and in England vaping is helping adults to quit smoking. The substantial decline in cigarette consumption in Japan is associated with the rapid uptake of products that heat, rather than burn, tobacco.

    Less progress has been made in low-income and middle-income countries where tobacco control capacity and political will to advance tobacco control measures are weaker, and the potential of tobacco harm reduction is not being realized, according to the authors.

    Beaglehole and Bonita say two concerns suggest why tobacco harm reduction is not more actively embraced, despite its association with reduced smoking prevalence. The first is that, compared with cigarettes, where the damage has been known for more than half a century, the long-term effects of e-cigarettes are unknown.

    Although vaping may not be risk-free, especially for people who do not smoke, the risks of there being substantial long-term harm from the constituents of e-cigarettes are likely to be low, especially when compared with the damage caused by smoked tobacco, the authors point out.

    The second concern is that the widespread availability of e-cigarettes in the absence of adequate controls and regulations encourages youth nicotine dependence and enables the vaping industry to act unethically. Beaglehole and Bonita say there is little evidence to suggest that vaping leads to smoking among youth, and although the proportion of non-smoking youth who vape is increasing, it remains at a fairly low level.

    Stricter regulations, including enforcing sales restrictions, and appropriate health promoting campaigns are needed to prevent vaping by young people, according to the authors, but these measures must be balanced with the health needs of older adults who smoke and require support to quit.

    Beaglehole and Bonita acknowledge that there is understandable skepticism about the motives of the tobacco industry in selling smoke-free products while continuing to expand tobacco markets in low-income and middle-income countries. To remain profitable, they say, the tobacco industry will eventually need to migrate its global business to less harmful alternatives since cigarettes will no longer monopolize the delivery of nicotine.

    The authors express concern about the recommendations, found in COP10 background papers, to treat nicotine products as equivalent to cigarettes and regulating them in a similar way. This approach, they argue, is a retrograde step because they are not comparable products in terms of the damage they cause; after all, it is the burning of tobacco that causes harm, not nicotine. Worse, such a strategy would ultimately favor the global cigarette market and may discourage vaping, according to Beaglehole and Bonita.

    The focus, they insist, must remain on the central public health problem—the damaging health effects of tobacco consumption. “Reducing cigarette smoking is the most effective way to prevent tobacco-related deaths and tobacco harm reduction is the fastest and fairest way to lower smoking prevalence,” the authors write.

    “WHO needs to embrace these innovations in nicotine delivery. Countries that are reaping the benefit of tobacco harm reduction, such as New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, England and Japan, should encourage participating countries at COP10 to support proposals that will quickly reduce smoking rates. The world’s 1.3 billion people who smoke, half of whom will die early, deserve this leadership.”

     

  • Counter-COP Laments Bloomberg’s Influence

    Counter-COP Laments Bloomberg’s Influence

    Photo: TPA

    Participants in the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) Good COP/Bad COP event in Panama lamented the influence of U.S. billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg over tobacco control policies.

    “Michael Bloomberg is spending money to reduce consumer choice…He thinks he’s this big philanthropist, that he’s helping kids, helping adults—he’s not,” said TPA President Davd Williams. “By limiting these products, he’s not helping anyone but himself and his own ego.” 

    The Bloomberg-backed and funded Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids  (CTFK) has nearly 40 representatives in the provisional attendees listing while Bloomberg-created Vital Strategies has nearly 20 representatives present.

    According to the TPA, CTFK takes Bloomberg funding to spread misinformation and myths to pressure international agencies to implement draconian regulations on tobacco harm reduction products while Vital Strategies supports bans on the sales of flavored harm reduction products across the world.

    “Bloomberg’s billions and groups may have TPA’s Good COP outnumbered and outspent, but the science and facts are on our side,” the TPA wrote in a press note.

    On Feb. 7, participants in the Good COP/Bad COP panels focused on the science, consumers, and policy of tobacco harm reduction. Experts discussed struggles unique to low and middle income countries in embracing harm reduction, misinformation, along with Bloomberg’s influence.